[Desk Column] Active Administration in the Era of Political Superiority

Civil servants are known as the epitome of stable employment, but they are also infamous for being complacent and indifferent. Every administration has implemented systems and incentives to encourage proactive administration and exempt civil servants from responsibility when acting proactively, but the reality in the public sector has not reflected this. According to the 'Analysis of Obstacles to Activating Proactive Administration' report published last year by the Board of Audit and Inspection, which surveyed 2,967 public officials from central and local governments and public institutions, the biggest reason (multiple responses allowed) why public officials do not engage in proactive administration was perceived to be environmental factors such as public service culture (33.7%). This was followed by institutional factors such as unreasonable or impractical procedures (26.2%), personal factors such as lack of responsibility awareness among public officials regarding proactive administration (20.9%), and organizational factors such as authoritarian and coercive leadership or internal controls that hinder proactive administration (16.6%).

The civil servants who responded to the survey cited factors blocking proactive administration such as "public officials' reluctance to take responsibility, lack of responsibility awareness by passing problems to the next person instead of handling them themselves," "the more they act, the more responsibility and burden increase, and the negative perception of having to deal with such obstacles every time, thinking within a fixed framework," among others.

There is a saying, "Governments are temporary, but bureaucrats are eternal." Among the public sector and experts, politics is cited as the fundamental problem hindering proactive administration. Although the executive branch plays a crucial role in the separation of powers alongside the legislative and judicial branches, the executive has long been subordinate to politics. Government policies have come to be led not by the executive branch but by the Blue House and the ruling party. While the appointment of politicians has clear positive functions, if political logic excessively influences government policies, policy consistency deteriorates, trust in policies is lost, and this creates a vicious cycle that suppresses proactive administration.

The public sector is unsettled as Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy officials have been detained over the mass deletion of documents related to the early shutdown of the Wolseong Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1. It is difficult to predict how the case will conclude through indictment and trial after detention. However, regardless of guilt or innocence, the fact that the prosecution requested warrants and the court ordered detention means the direct and indirect impact on the public sector will inevitably be significant.

To fulfill the president's pledges, no matter how much civil servants are seen as "soulless bureaucrats," they must not engage in illegal acts such as fabrication and deletion. However, if legal standards are imposed on policy decisions, judgments, and execution, civil servants can only fall into panic. The phase-out of nuclear power was a pledge of the Moon Jae-in administration, and those responsible for implementing and taking responsibility for it are ultimately civil servants and public institutions.

Looking back at past administrations, the larger the scale, impact, and backlash of a pledge, the more it inevitably resulted in audits, investigations, and disciplinary actions during the current or subsequent governments. This was the case with the Lee Myung-bak administration's Four Major Rivers Project and resource development, as well as the Park Geun-hye administration's state affairs manipulation and the Mir and K-Sports Foundation projects. How many civil servants can actually defy the president to the extent of being called a "really bad person"? Because of this, there is talk in the public sector that complacency and indifference may prevail toward the end of the current term due to this detention. When calculating the pros and cons of proactive versus passive administration, the benefits of proactive administration seem small, while the disadvantages may be greater. Passive administration may cause losses, but these are much smaller than the potential losses caused by proactive administration. Under a single five-year presidential term system, it is difficult to induce proactive administration in all policies and measures within the public sector.

The response to the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19), which is evaluated as relatively well managed compared to overseas, is considered the result of proactive administration led by an expert group acting as a control tower under the president's directive, focusing thoroughly on quarantine. It is hoped that the lessons learned from the so-called K-quarantine will be utilized in end-of-term policies and measures to encourage proactive administration within the public sector.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.